Topic: Jackie Brown (1997)

[Antares]

Retreating, Antares? Yeah, I've seen you off, now lets start on your little friend!   

 

Let's just call it a tactical redeployment for a little R & R. 

[Alien Redrum]

Death Proof simply isn't entertaining, but it was ambitious. He was trying to pull off a Psycho effect, but simply proved how bloody hard it is. So, I agree it did come off tedious, but I still enjoyed it, even while it wasn't going anywhere. The final act is frigging superb though, being as I love the pointless chase movies, like Vanishing Point and I appreciated his efforts with the stunts.

Death Proof had two problems. The first was the two parts should have been transposed for a true grindhouse movie (to start with). The second was it was way to Vanishing Point. I'll give credit for Tarantino for acknowledging its predecessor, but those car chase scenes were all Point.

Plus, adding damaged film print does not a grindhouse movie make.

But, yeah, the second part was a lot of fun, and it would have been better if the parts were swapped.

In keeping with the topic, Jackie Brown better than supposed Pam Grier classics like Foxy Brown and Coffy.

No.

That's the short answer.

The main reason being is films like Foxy Brown and Coffy were so much more important to their time period that it elevated to (rightful) classics. Plus, they stand the test of time and are still wonderful. That's not to say Jackie Brown won't stand the test of time, because I think it will. However, the classic Pam Grier blaxploitation flicks had a soul to them that Jackie Brown is missing IMO. (And by 'soul', I mean that in both the black way and the soul in your body sort of way. Don't worry if you don't understand this, it makes complete sense in my head. :lol: )

The links with Reservoir Dogs are tenuous and what similarities are there are filtered into something superb.

I won't disagree (although as much as I enjoy Reservoir Dogs, I won't call it superb), but the links certainly cannot be denied and the fact that Tarantino said he never saw it makes him not very credible.

To add, the names of the characters being a straight steal from Taking of Pelham is annoying as piss, too. I'm convinced that's why they didn't use those names in the remake because people would say the remake was ripping off Reservoir Dogs (as far as the names).  

And just what did Pulp Fiction rip off? Bearing in mind Dogs was originally just a chapter within that film, expanded for an easier debut.

Now, let me be clear, I don't think Tarantino rips off entire movies. However, the best parts of his movies have all been done before. Regarding Pulp Fiction, Samuel Jackson's religious speech immediately comes to mind as it's straight lifted from The Body Guard (Sonny Chiba).

Two videos that do a good job pointing them out are the 'who do you think you're fooling' pieces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HgbSAL8OKY (you can't embed this one)

[Antares]

The Three Little Bops thing has always gone up my ass sideways. 

[Najemikon]

The second was it was way to Vanishing Point. I'll give credit for Tarantino for acknowledging its predecessor, but those car chase scenes were all Point.

Apart from the car, I saw no extended reference to Point. Probably because in Death Proof it was nothing more than a set-piece, while in VP it was the plot. That isn’t in anyway a critiscm of either; both work. Vanishing Point is rather profound in some ways and the scene in Death Proof is frivolous and fun.

The main reason being is films like Foxy Brown and Coffy were so much more important to their time period that it elevated to (rightful) classics. Plus, they stand the test of time and are still wonderful. That's not to say Jackie Brown won't stand the test of time, because I think it will. However, the classic Pam Grier blaxploitation flicks had a soul to them that Jackie Brown is missing IMO. (And by 'soul', I mean that in both the black way and the soul in your body sort of way. Don't worry if you don't understand this, it makes complete sense in my head. :lol: )

I know exactly what you mean, but I simply don’t agree. Jimmy will back you up no end here because that’s his genre, and I freely admit I’m obviously a mainstream whore. I like a slick production over gritty urban, so for me, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill and even Death Proof in some respects made smoother more fun and watchable versions of his inspirations. Clearly he adores that kind of filmmaking and it’s an ironic trick that he’s made it popular by picking the bones.

Specifically with Coffy and Foxy, important? Absolutely. Watchable? Hell no. Plus Grier made her mark in those films because in a way, she was having to fight for respect even while they were being made. There’s a fight scene in one, I can’t remember which, but the only point of it is to rip each others tops off. That’s dishonest bollocks and thank goodness we’ve moved on.

I won't disagree (although as much as I enjoy Reservoir Dogs, I won't call it superb), but the links certainly cannot be denied and the fact that Tarantino said he never saw it makes him not very credible.

Well I think it’s superb because of how he builds scenes. The ear slicing for one which is a great little piece of audience manipulation. I’m surprised at how much he supports Eli Roth because Tarantino has a great sense of how violence should be used.

You’re right his denials can only dent his reputation, but one thing that has always fascinated me about the movie industry is how it has to be played. Back then, I can’t blame him for not saying, “hey come look at my revolutionary movie that I lifted from someone you never heard of”. No, much better to stay relatively quiet and push Dogs as it stands. It deserved focus and still does.

To add, the names of the characters being a straight steal from Taking of Pelham is annoying as piss, too. I'm convinced that's why they didn't use those names in the remake because people would say the remake was ripping off Reservoir Dogs (as far as the names).

Sir, how dare you somehow attribute any kind of credit to that awful film! You imply that if they could have used the names, we’d have a modern classic on our hands! Nope, still shite. Might have been better if they’d named them after the Teletubbies instead.

But here is an interesting point that has to be stressed. The original Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is one of my top five films. I bloody love it. And when I heard the names in Dogs, it made me grin. I just nodded and thought “nice touch”. You heard it and started building your gallows. I find that difference in reaction interesting. I don’t think anything can be made of it, but still...

I haven’t seen The Bodyguard, but I’d have had the same reaction, honestly. I’d have just thought, how frigging cool is that? Jackson hamming up an obscure speech! Go for it!

I’m afraid I consider much of the other comparisons as bollocks and including a Scorcese clip really dishonest. He did a marvellous documentary about American Cinema and one chapter was devoted to considering the director as a ‘Smuggler’, as it’s perfectly normal to do things like taking the case idea from Aldritch. He’s hardly likely to cry foul and someone shouldn’t presume to do it on his behalf.

There’s a case of pedantic double-standards in those videos. A hell of a lot of absolute blatant remakes never mention the fact. Or if they do, it’s only to trash the original (Pelham 1 2 3; 3:10 to Yuma). At least Tarantino clearly respects the originals to either do it quietly or actively promote the originals by going as far as employing their crew in some cases.

The Three Little Bops thing has always gone up my ass sideways. 

Antares, that was your 1001st post. You made a correlation between three little bops and your ass for your milestone? You should be ashamed!


Well done. Thank you for being a big part of this forum and at least your other 1000 posts are of a much higher standard! I always enjoy your thoughts.

(click to show/hide)

The fact you reached the milestone after discovering I was right about Tarantino all along is just poetic. HA!

[Kathy]

I would like to request a popcorn eating smilie for when Jon, Alien Redrum and Antares go at it! 

[Antares]

Antares, that was your 1001st post. You made a correlation between three little bops and your ass for your milestone? You should be ashamed!

Jon, don't you remember my question and post in the Jeopardy game...http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5986.msg105957.html#msg105957
It's my favorite cartoon of all time, and that weasel lifted one of the best spots from it.

Well done. Thank you for being a big part of this forum and at least your other 1000 posts are of a much higher standard! I always enjoy your thoughts.

Thank You sir, you already know from my previous postings, how much I respect your opinions (misguided as they sometimes are ) and how much I love this forum.

(click to show/hide)

The fact you reached the milestone after discovering I was right about Tarantino all along is just poetic. HA!

1 film out of 7? 

Are you serious?   

I know it's Friday night, but I think you've downed a few too many shandys tonight. That statement reminds me of that old saying that even a broken clock is right at least twice a day.    Sure Jackie Brown is great, but the two that came before were derivative, while the last four have been sophomoric and beyond narcissistic. 

[Jimmy]

We have it Kathy



Jon it's always funny to see you write how it's cool to built a Frankenstein's monster with bits and pieces of different obscure movies. As much as you are a very knowledgable (??) movie fans the minutes Tarentino is mention you jump in the fanboy trap

[Antares]

As much as you are a very knowledgable (??) movie fans the minutes Tarentino is mention you jump in the fanboy trap

  Oh I can't wait for this response 

[Najemikon]

1 film out of 7? 

Are you serious?   

I know it's Friday night, but I think you've downed a few too many shandys tonight. That statement reminds me of that old saying that even a broken clock is right at least twice a day.    Sure Jackie Brown is great, but the two that came before were derivative, while the last four have been sophomoric and beyond narcissistic. 

No, not serious! Sometimes the best defence is offense...

As much as you are a very knowledgable (??) movie fans the minutes Tarentino is mention you jump in the fanboy trap

Do I heck as like! (bit of Northern England for you there)

I am not and never have been a "fanboy", you cheeky sod! I am absolutely honest when I say I prefer this... -if you must- Frankenstein's Monster.

I just take Tarantino for what he is; truly talented, never boring and making far more important films than the regular crap we get shovelled every week, that does nothing but manipulate and undermine the viewers intelligence. And I know you hate me saying this, but his work, loved or loathed, has created great exposure for the originals that you love so much. Everyone wins! More obscure titles have a chance of being published because distributors have a new market to aim at (I bought Inglorious Bastards because it was just a couple of quid in Tesco, on the back of Tarantino's film). And those of us who don't like the ropey old rubbish have shiny better versions to watch courtesy of QT! 

The joke is, I have the high ground anyway. Until he creates a film that destroys his reputation, he will always have a strong fanbase, especially in Europe. The French adore him and it was our fault in the UK that Dogs took off at all.

Sorry about that. 

[Antares]

he will always have a strong fanbase, especially in Europe. The French adore him

That truly does not bolster your argument Jon, they also feel that Jerry Lewis is the greatest comedian of all time. 

[Najemikon]

he will always have a strong fanbase, especially in Europe. The French adore him

That truly does not bolster your argument Jon, they also feel that Jerry Lewis is the greatest comedian of all time. 

Oh, I know that. The French are nuts, they even liked Death Proof (I mean really liked). You might not be able to polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter and I swear they'd hand you an award for it.

But hey, a votes a vote. Even if the US kicked Tarantino out, he'd just move to London or Paris and start remaking Get Carter or something, and I'd still watch it. Perhaps a new Jules Et Jim crossed with Bonnie and Clyde?

By the way, I'm never one to refuse healthy xenophobia, but I have to say our resident French-Canadians seem slightly more sensible than vintage Parisian... 

[Antares]

By the way, I'm never one to refuse healthy xenophobia, but I have to say our resident French-Canadians seem slightly more sensible than vintage Parisian... 

Well I have to agree with you there, because I'm half Canadian French. My great-great grandfather and grandmother on my mother side were from Quebec.

[Jimmy]

That truly does not bolster your argument Jon, they also feel that Jerry Lewis is the greatest comedian of all time.  

You were faster than me with this
If you want to check the most annoying performance of him try to watch the 2 french films from 1984 he was in (Retenez-moi... ou je fais un malheur! and Par où t'es rentré? On t'a pas vu sortir). I'm lucky enough to have seen those in their original version

I have to say our resident French-Canadians seem slightly more sensible than vintage Parisian... 

It's because we aren't French
They are so annoying and full of themselves

[Achim]

I am on Jon's side of the argument, just cannot express myself so eloquently.

Of all the things that Jon said and I mostly agree with I thought this was most telling:

But here is an interesting point that has to be stressed. The original Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is one of my top five films. I bloody love it. And when I heard the names in Dogs, it made me grin. I just nodded and thought “nice touch”. You heard it and started building your gallows. I find that difference in reaction interesting. I don’t think anything can be made of it, but still...

I have seen this elsewhere as well. Once something has rubbed one the wrong way, we often just look for more rub rather than looking at everything on its own merits.

FWIW, I remember reading of Tarantino's claim not to be familiar with City on Fire, which is a rather ridiculous, seeing how the whole second part of that film makes out the entire plot of Tarantino. But I guess it was before it was chic to remake foreign films and still be allowed to put your own mark on them, like Scorcese did with The Departed. So, had Tarantino at the time admitted to using parts of the Hong Kong film as base for his story, would he have been better received by those critics? Beyond that, I found that Tarantino was always quite open about his sources, with the peak being Kill Bill and then put upside down with the "remake" of Inglouious Bastards, which wasn't a remake really (indicated by the misspelled title...? ).

[Antares]

FWIW, I remember reading of Tarantino's claim not to be familiar with City on Fire, which is a rather ridiculous, seeing how the whole second part of that film makes out the entire plot of Tarantino.

Actually he was probably channeling Leone, seeing as how he just can't stop paying 'homage'* to him. 

Leone completely plagiarized Kurosawa, but got caught. Which actually became a windfall for Kurosawa. He made more money on the international rights for Fistful of Dollars, than he did on any one of his own releases.









* - ripping him off